0 sats \ 6 replies \ @windward 15 Jan \ parent \ on: On Lincoln history
This speech is being made at the same time that Fort Sumter was under blockade, during negotations:
Pryor had advocated for South Carolina to fire on the Fort in order to encourage Virginia to secede -to bring more states into the conflict.
They knew what they were signing up for.
I have no doubt that there were particular individuals who wanted war. There always are. It doesn't seem nearly as widespread or explicit as Lincoln pledging to wage a war to prevent secession.
I've seen people breakdown the lead up to firing on Fort Sumter and it strikes me as a very messy situation. The South obviously fired first, but the North knew they were increasing the odds of that with their actions. Again, bad actors on both sides.
I don't have a strong opinion about who's most at fault in the incident. Since, I do believe in a right to secede, I think the Union should have already vacated, but that doesn't mean they necessarily deserved to be fired on.
reply
I have no doubt that there were particular individuals who wanted war.
The particular individuals in question were running the Confederate States of America.
Pryor was a politician in Virginia.The Cornerstone Speech was made by their Vice President. I highly encourage you to read it to understand what they thought their motivations were.
North knew they were increasing the odds of that with their actions
you haven't actually stated what that action would be - and all of the previous suggestions you've brought up are things that were attempted and rejected by the Confederates.
What action are you referring to? Not expanding slavery? It is their sole stated purpose for wanting to secede.
I think the Union should have already vacated, but that doesn't mean they necessarily deserved to be fired on.
Union troops were negotiating exactly when to leave and when they provided a time they would leave they were fired on literally an hour they did so. The Confederates intentionally ruined any possible chance of peaceful negotiation because they wanted to increase the scope of the conflict.
reply
Union troops were negotiating exactly when to leave
When you're on someone else's property staying on it and negotiating when to leave does not mean you have a right to be there or that the owner doesn't have a right to remove you. That's not a perfect analogy, but it should get my point across. Continuing to occupy the fort (and other territories in the seceding states) is the action that the North knew was provocative. Obviously, I don't think they should have expanded slavery.
It may well be true that some group of Confederates intentionally sabotaged a peace process. I would never rule something like that out.
reply
It may well be true that some group of Confederates
The group in question is the members of the Confederate government,up to and including the president of the CSA.
every time I've quoted the cornerstone speech it's the vice president talking.
this is not a weird minority fringe of the CSA,it's the people that made actual decisions about the nature of their government.
Obviously, I don't think they should have expanded slavery
Their desire for secession is directly conjoined at the hip to their desire to maintain slavery and their fear it would eventually go away.
Without this thirst for unpaid labor, and the desire for the state to protect that theft,
they would never have left.
Once this is understood then you'll see why the Confederates didn't consider peace an option.
reply
At no point was I seeking to defend the CSA. Even if they were not considering peace an option, if Lincoln also was not considering peace with the newly independent states an option (my understanding of the situation) then both sides bear some responsibility.
Also, even if the start of the war was entirely the CSA's fault, that wouldn't absolve Lincoln of responsibility for how the war was waged. He had many more people killed and maimed and much more property destroyed than was needed to defend the Union states from any southern aggression.
As interesting as this conversation has been, it has well surpassed my interest in the Civil War.
reply
When you're on someone else's property
It literally was the federal government's property initially and during negotiations for the transition to the new Confederates they held them hostage via blockade for weeks before opening fire.
You need to negotiate for some peaceful means of transitioning those soldiers and weapons out so the people inside know they won't immediately get killed- otherwise they have every incentive to stay inside -and it's during that process the Confederates opened fire.they would have gotten the fort without doing so- they were literally telling them time and date they would walk out so they would not see their movements as hostile
reply